Ethanol... why!?!

[rdefabri]

Fusion? Nuclear power? We might as well have flying cars! :eek: Try cars that run on hydrogen, or no fuel at all, like solar.

You should do some more research. Hydrogen isn't the answer - it still takes more to refine than you get out of it, oil is still better and much more stable. Can't argue the cost as much, since oil is getting increasingly expensive, but Hydrogen ain't cheap. Solar???? Give me a break - that's akin to your flying cars. Photovoltaics aren't small enough and you can't store enough energy to power a vehicle.

You aren't trying to solve the problem of expensive gas. You are trying to solve the problem of providing clean energy (to power homes, factories...everything) without chance of depletion.

If the rest of the world thinks fusion is like a flying car, then we are in trouble. Fusion is as real as any other renewable source, and suffers many of the same issues (e.g., reactors too big and expensive to harness) but it solves all the other problems the other alternative fuels have (it's infinite). It requires a plan and investment, something that is happening, but not at a fast enough clip. This is not theoretical, it's proven to work, albeit not at anything reasonable to power even an LED.

Remember, people laughed at the idea of a personal computer, let alone one that's as big as a watch. They poo-poohed the idea of putting men on the moon. They mock fusion much the same, but it's the only long-term answer.

[red_dog007]

Ok, this is the general discussion forum so, here it goes. how many people actually thing using Ethanol is helping? from what I can gather, ethanol reduces mileage, is highly corrosive, and costs more than gasoline. so, why are we being forced to use it? I live in the Huntsville Alabama area and have yet to find a gas station not using Ethanol. I thought that I had found one, and then realized that the A$$ HOLES had covered up the stickers with a piece of cardboard. But back to the subject, why are we putting up with this. I'm guessing that my old z won't run on ethanol gas, but I haven't tried it. I drive a 2001 honda accord and I can tell a difference in mileage. My dad on the other hand drives a 2003 chevy impala, he sees a HUGE difference in a mileage. so, if ethanol costs more, reduces mileage, and wears on cars, what's the deal? how can we get rid of this dumbass idea. If this is a precursor of what could happen if Washington starts controlling gas further, we're screwed.

All that is true with E85. All the places that use ethanol, which is so far around 50% of the stations in the US, which by law will be 100% soon, only uses a 10% ethanol mix. 10% mix does nothing. In all of our vehicles, they all run just fine, get the same economy, ect. ect. In my truck, when I took it to emissions, the only difference from last year was the 10% ethanol mix, and my emissions were greatly reduced.

The 10% ethanol mix also keeps a little more of my money inside the United States, and it does actually help to make fuel a couple cents cheaper.

Not, E85 does reduce economy, but is offset with it being cheaper and that is why E85 has its own infrastructure so that current systems don't corrode away.

But it does have advantages. It burns much cooler then regular gasoline, and has an octane rating of 105. Racing fuel is usually like a $1 more then regular and only provides 100 octane. Ethanol is like half the price, burns cooler, and gives you an extra 5 octane. We all know what racing fuel is used for, (you can get it at drag strips), so E85 is all the better

Gives you higher octane for more boost, and burns cooler so keeps the engine and turbo's cooler, for even more boost! There are a few models that really take advantage of E85. There is one sports car that sees a 200hp increase from 91 octane to E85. Then there are a fewer smaller engines that see like a 40hp or 50hp increase.

Even in N/A forum, you could see like a 20hp increase if the engine is ready/designed for it.

The only real negative about ethanol is that it takes away from the food supply, but with the new technology that has been coming out, all that should change hopefully soon.

A lot of racing leagues have been using ethanol for quiet some time because of its extreme benefits over regular gasoline, or even the racing gasoline.

[jmortensen]

Please do some research about ethanol before you post a lot of misinformation. Ethanol mixed with petro fuel is not any more coorosive than water. It is a renewable resource and it doesn't emit as much greenhouse gasses. The high food price thing is pure propoganda. 40% of our nation's corn production today goes to cattle feed. The government pays farmers to not grow crops - we all know that. Ethanol farming is a new economic opportunity. World wide. Ethanol / methanol fuels provide 87% of Brazil's energy needs and 95% of new automobiles sold in Brazil run on flex fuel; 85% ethanol. As a result, Brazil fuel prices are far lower than ours. Brazil mandated ethanol / methanol flex fuels ten years ago and they are the world wide model example of energy self suffiency. Currently, ethanol costs around $2.50 a gallon to produce. You may think it is more expensive, but then you say all the gas in Huntsville is ethanol mixed, so more expensive than what? By growing more crops for ethanol, we are planting more green; the primary source of scrubbing CO2 from our atmoshpere - thus reducing global warming. Yes, ethanol blends used in our old cars will result in decreased mileage and there is not much that can be done about it. More and more new vehicles will be equipped for flex fuels and those vehicles won't have the problem.

Sounds like you just got off the ethanol propaganda bus! I think the big push for corn based ethanol in the US has a lot to do with the farming lobbies. Brazil makes ethanol from sugarcane which is a much better source than the corn we're using in the US. The reality in the US is a bit different. Here is a maybe more balanced view of corn based methanol production: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol

Compared to Brazil's sugarcane:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

The benefits and drawbacks of alcohol based fuels are exaggerated by both sides in the debate. They will not reduce our dependence on oil, they will not save the environment, they will not destroy your car's fuel system, and they are not a significant contributer to the increase in world food prices.

As far as using food as fuel for cars and expecting that not to raise the cost of food, I'm not buying that argument. It may not be a significant factor yet, but if you have a finite amount of food production and you take some of that away to be used as car fuel, then your supply has gone down and your demand raised. This will lead inexorably to higher prices, the more ethanol is burned in cars, the higher the prices will get. Plus it takes resources to do the farming and the refining, which raises demand for diesel, whatever is used for the production of fertilizer, etc.

Here is a really interesting presentation on alternative energy comparing with "fossil" fuels. It's long, and the speaker has many annoying facial tics, but the info is really interesting: http://nsl.caltech.edu/energy.html

I'm sure you've all already been inundated with the Global Warming alamist stuff, so here is some skeptical Global Warming and CO2 info from two CalTech alumni and an Australian Paleoclimatologist:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/27/best-statistical-scientific-talk-on-global-warming/

The problem with all of these arguments is that you can't really trust any one report's viewpoint. To me, the alarmist sentiments that come with Global Warming smack of religious armageddon movements, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. The arguments against it seem much more rational and level headed to me.

There is also a really strong taint of socialism in the GW reduction efforts. Cap and trade as an example assumes that 3rd world countries that aren't industrialized won't produce as much CO2, so the polluters PAY them to pollute more. Sounds like economic redistribution to me, and that sounds distinctly like socialism. What's more you have the big brother government coming in to save us from ourselves by taking control of how much energy we use and how much we pollute. Sounds like a bad deal all around to me...

[Carl Beck]

Ok, this is the general discussion forum so, here it goes. how many people actually thing using Ethanol is helping?

Writing for the New York Times - about as "green" and liberal rag as you can find, OP-ED Columnist Paul Krugman wrote:

"........... Where the effects of bad policy are clearest, however, is in the rise of demon ethanol and other biofuels.

The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit global warming. But this promise was, as Time magazine bluntly put it, a “scam.”

This is especially true of corn ethanol: even on optimistic estimates, producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains. But it turns out that even seemingly “good” biofuel policies, like Brazil’s use of ethanol from sugar cane, accelerate the pace of climate change by promoting deforestation.

And meanwhile, land used to grow biofuel feedstock is land not available to grow food, so subsidies to biofuels are a major factor in the food crisis. You might put it this way: people are starving in Africa so that American politicians can court votes in farm states.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering: all the remaining presidential contenders are terrible on this issue.

One more thing: one reason the food crisis has gotten so severe, so fast, is that major players in the grain market grew complacent.

Governments and private grain dealers used to hold large inventories in normal times, just in case a bad harvest created a sudden shortage. Over the years, however, these precautionary inventories were allowed to shrink, mainly because everyone came to believe that countries suffering crop failures could always import the food they needed.

This left the world food balance highly vulnerable to a crisis affecting many countries at once — in much the same way that the marketing of complex financial securities, which was supposed to diversify away risk, left world financial markets highly vulnerable to a systemwide shock.

What should be done? The most immediate need is more aid to people in distress: the U.N.’s World Food Program put out a desperate appeal for more funds.

We also need a pushback against biofuels, which turn out to have been a terrible mistake.

But it’s not clear how much can be done. Cheap food, like cheap oil, may be a thing of the past. "

You can read the entire column at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

When people like Mr. Krugman start to tell you that bio-fuels are a bad deal - it's time to take notice! This is no Right-wing mouthpiece!!

How About the UN?

United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon is concerned about the threat of a world food shortage, saying action must be taken quickly, otherwise there will be unrest on an unprecedented scale.

"Prices have soared for a number of reasons - high fuel costs, bad weather in key food producing countries like Australia, the increase in land allocated to bio-fuels, and a surge in demand, much of it from the rising middle classes of China and India."

See:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/30/2231223.htm?section=world

FWIW

Carl B.

[Carl Beck]

Racing fuel is usually like a $1 more then regular and only provides 100 octane.

Please tell me where you are buying "racing fuel" for $1 more than regular!! I'll take a thousand gallons! Racing Fuel (110 octane) around here is now $8.75 per gallon, and soon to be closer to $10.00. 100 octane aviation fuel is $7.75 and going up - that by the way is not "racing fuel".

Just a little aside....

FWIW

Carl B.

[Carl Beck]

Fusion? Nuclear power? We might as well have flying cars! :eek: Try cars that run on hydrogen, or no fuel at all, like solar.

A "Fuel Cell" as applied to this discussion - converts a specific fuel, chemically and directly to electrical energy. That electrical energy is then used to drive an electric motor, that drives a vehicle.

It takes more electrical energy to free the hydrogen from H2O, than you can get back out of a hydrogen fuel cell. The use of the fuel cell is simply a way of storing, or carrying a fuel supply with you...

To convert our vehicles to hydrogen fuel cell technology - we would have to generate the original electrical energy from nuclear power plants - that is at present the only clean, efficient method of producing enough electrical energy in the first place.

If we want/need electric cars running on Fuel Cells - the first step is building several hundred additional nuclear power plants here in the US. At present France gets about 80% of their electrical power from nuclear power plants - IMHO if France can do it - so can we.

The second step would be to convert "gasoline filling stations" to "hydrogen refueling stations"... no small task...

FWIW,

Carl B.

[xray]

The problem with all of these arguments is that you can't really trust any one report's viewpoint. To me, the alarmist sentiments that come with Global Warming smack of religious armageddon movements, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. The arguments against it seem much more rational and level headed to me.

There is also a really strong taint of socialism in the GW reduction efforts. Cap and trade as an example assumes that 3rd world countries that aren't industrialized won't produce as much CO2, so the polluters PAY them to pollute more. Sounds like economic redistribution to me, and that sounds distinctly like socialism. What's more you have the big brother government coming in to save us from ourselves by taking control of how much energy we use and how much we pollute. Sounds like a bad deal all around to me...

Well, you and Mr Krauthammer are like-minded....

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGI0MDdiZDQ3MGI1ZGYzNWZkZTcwZWM5YzI2MWI5N2U=

"Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher’s England to Deng’s China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual Left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but — even better — in the name of Earth itself.

Environmentalists are Gaia’s priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment — carbon chastity — they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.

...There’s no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society"

Fairly well-stated.

[Carl Beck]

Thanks Steve:

IMHO - Charles Krauthammer is one of the clearest thinking, most rational and most intelligent columnists you will find today. Everyone should read his entire column at the link xray posted. It is significant to also note his reference to Czech President Vaclav Klaus statement; - “The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity, is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.”

President Klaus is a man that has seen first hand, the ravages of central government social control.

FWIW,

Carl B.

[jmortensen]

Here's Klaus's speech:

http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=IS0gccWYLKQK

[Carl Beck]

OK - so we've talked about some the various "problems"... be they Global Warming, CO2, Political Propaganda, Junk Science, Deforestation, Oil Shortages or not, etc etc. etc.

What could we actually do about them all? What is the solution to our present quandary?

Any system that is thrown out of balance by some outside force, if it keeps running, it seeks to either right itself (re-balance), or it shakes itself to destruction.

At present we Americans are shaking ourselves to destruction. I believe it is past time we re-balanced ourselves.

We have to retake control of our governments at all levels - city, state, federal. We need to retake control from the big money interests, the big government interests, and the big Political Party interests. The three work hand in hand to enhance one anothers positions - at the expense of we the people.

It is quite easy to regain people power - in our Representative form of Democracy. For the next eight or twelve election cycles we all show up at the Poles - and vote the incumbents out of office. Yes, send them home to live under the laws they passed and live with the decisions they made while they were representing US. Simply refuse to accept the Political Propaganda, refuse the rational arguments from the silver tongues of the saviors... Throw the Politicians and their buddies out -

That action alone - throw the incumbents out - time and time again - would quickly negate the effects of huge campaign contributions, negate the effects of paid lobby efforts, negate the effects of politically slanted media. It would destroy the Political Parties "seniority systems" which reward staying in office, more than they reward caring for the citizens of the Nation or the Nation itself.

Wake up Americans - you are daily being sold down stream without a paddle.. while the professional Politicians smile and kiss you good-by. Cloaked as Young/Old, Black/White, Rich/Poor, Liberal/Conservative, Democrat/Republican - the heart and mind of the Professional Politician is the same - the driving need to gain and control Power - and reap the rewards that come with it personally.

Representing your fellow Citizens best interests should again be an Honor of brief duration - it should never be allowed to become a career. When "Politics" is your career - retaining and yielding Political Power is your goal. Money and the Special Interests that contribute the most of it - is the path to the Professional Politicians Personal Goals...

Money to spew Political Propaganda, money to manipulate the media, Power to reward your supporters and punish any decent. We all know that Money and Power is the present game - we are about to find out just how much it is going to cost us to watch the big boys play. Red States/Blue States?? are we all morons?

Today about 30% of the voting population have begun to realize that neither Political Party represents them. They have registered as Independent Voters. We need to get about 60% of the voters to consistently throw the incumbents out of office at every level - for a period of at least several years. That alone would purge most of the corruption, negate the effects of Big Money, negate the Power of the major Political Parties - and put Citizens back in charge of representing their fellow Citizens and our Nation.

Serving your fellow citizens with one term in elected office - should be viewed as the same as serving your fellow citizens with one term in the military, one term in the Peace Corp etc... We can put Statesman, back in our State House, back in our Federal Government... Eliminate the Professional Politicians - and we might get really good minds back to work for us.

At that point - "We the People of the United States of America" - will have some meaning again. Until then, bend over and get the K Y Jelly ready...

Representative Democracy works - only when the Citizens are smart enough make it work.

Just my perspective...

FWIW,

Carl B.

[e_racer1999]

HEAR HEAR! Essentially everything we believe is due to propaganga from some source or another; something that we have aligned ourselves with by using our propaganda-derived political opinions as guidelines.

This is one of those situations where objective proof is going to be near impossible to find because of all of the muck and rational arguments from either side. At any rate, the most we can do is attempt to find a solution that will make everyone happy (yeah right), or at least elect people that *may* figure something out while not being swayed by any special interest.

In short, we're pretty much screwed no matter what we do because we will never agree on everything, and lobbies are going to pull the political agenda every which way so that no real progress can be made.

mi dos centavos

[John Coffey]

For us car guys, its real simple:

1. Repair before replacing.

2. Keep your car in tune.

3. Enjoy what you have because there are people working real hard to take IC engines away from us - for our own good.

I strip away the old debris, that hides a shining car

A brilliant red barchetta, from a better, vanished time

I fire up the willing engine, responding with a roar

Tires spitting gravel, I commit my weekly crime...